9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . LTD. [ 2015 (4) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT] . This Tribunal in Cosmo Conductors Pvt. Ltd. s case observed that 'Even though the aforesaid judgement was delivered prior to insertion of Rule 10A, however, there is no change in the wordings of Rule 8 after 01.03.2007, and the facts of the present case do not fall either under sub-rule (i) or sub-rule (ii) of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.' There are no merit in the impugned order in applying Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Consequently, assessable value of the job-worked goods be determined following the principle laid down in UJAGAR PRINTS ETC. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] when the principal manufacturer (raw material supplier) uses it captively even after insertion of Rule 10A to the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS R BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. H.Y. Raju, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Rajesh Shastry, Superintendent for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured on job work basis by the appellant which were cleared to the principal manufacturer who consumes it captively, the assessable value be determined on the basis of principle laid down in the case of Ujjagar Prints or Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 7. We find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cosmo Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. [2015(4) TMI 351 SUPREME COURT]. This Tribunal in Cosmo Conductors Pvt. Ltd. s case observed as follows:- 6. The short issue involved in present appeals is : determination of assessable value of insulated copper conductors manufactured by the appellants on job work basis during the period 01.04.2007 to 08.09.2008. 7. The Revenue s contention is that the value of the insulated copper conductor manufactured on job work basis be determined under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 10A read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The contention of the appellant on the other hand is that since the ingredient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a principal manufacturer, from any inputs or goods supplied by the said principal manufacturer or by any other person authorised by him. RULE 11. If the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. 9. Undisputed facts are that the appellants received raw material namely duty paid copper conductors from various principal manufacturers, availed CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the said inputs, utilized the said copper conductors along with other raw material procured by them and manufactured insulated copper conductors on job work basis in their own factory. The insulated copper conductors are later cleared to the principal manufacturers on payment of duty and the principal manufacturers in turn captively consumed the goods in the manufacture of their finished products after availing credit of the duty paid on the job worked goods by the appellant. 10. After the insertion of Rule 10A in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the department disputed the method of assessment adopted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of motor vehicle parts from the raw material supplied by the manufacturers of the motor vehicles on labour charge basis. The manufactured motor vehicle parts are later supplied to the principal manufacturers who used the said parts in manufacture of vehicles. The question before the Hon ble Supreme Court was whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or Rule 11 would apply in arriving at the valuation of the goods at the end of the assessee. After interpreting Rule 8 and other Rules of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, their Lordships held as follows: 3. The question before us, in the present appeal, is as to whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) or Rule 11 thereof would apply in arriving at the valuation of the goods at the end of the respondent/assessee. As per the appellant/Department Rule 8 is applicable and therefore, the value has to be 115% of the cost of production. Rule 8 reads as under : RULE 8 : Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
